The Castles, West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham

Related Interests

Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Description: In April 2007 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4’s Time Team at ‘The Castles’, a scheduled monument situated on land at West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham (centred on N...

In April 2007 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4’s Time Team at ‘The Castles’, a scheduled monument situated on land at West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham (centred on NGR 410353 533078).
‘The Castles’ comprises a large, rhomboidal dry-stone monument with a single entrance to the east and a substantial ditch which appears to surround the monument on all sides. The monument was first recorded in late the 18th century and subject to a series of investigation by Hodgkin in the early 20th century, including, at times, extensive rebuilding of parts of the walls. No evidence for internal structures or dating had been found, but the monument was believed to represent the remains of a fortified site of Late Iron-Age, Romano-British or post-Roman date.

All finds by context (number / weight in grammes) Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal

Figures: Figure 1: Site location plans Figure 2: Trench locations (1-7) and areas of geophysical survey (Areas 1-4) with summary of results from Areas 1, 3 and 4. Figure 3: Summary of geophysical gradiometer and ground penetrating radar interpretations in Area 2 (with location of evaluation trenches) Figure 4: Trench 1: South-facing section showing inner-face of north wall 102 (original and re-build). West facing section showing inner-face of north wall (102) and tumble therefrom (original - 101; from re-build - 100). View from southwest interior of structure looking north and showing part of inner face, core and tumble from the north wall. Figure 5: Trench 2: Elevations of north and south walls flanking entrance showing original walls (204, 213, 217 and 219) and re-builds (205, 216 and 218) and collapsed orthostat 212. Plan showing flagged (202, 208) and cobble (207) surfaces within gateway, re-built levels of south wall (215, 216 and 218), original (204 and 219) and re-built (205) levels of north wall, and collapse orthostat 212. View from east exterior to monument looking towards the gateway from stream (pre-excavation). View from the southeast exterior to the monument showing the north wall of the entrance post-excavation (note robbed-out core). View from the northeast exterior showing the south wall of the entrance, flagged and cobbled surfaces and the ‘guard cell’ post-excavation. Figure 6: Trench 3: Plan showing wall (305, 308 and 309), external ditch (315) and internal flagged area (307). View from southwest of monument showing southern line of ditch and slope up to the south wall. View of south wall from interior of monument showing position of Antiquarian trench prior to excavation (from west northwest). Post-excavation view of outer-face of south wall looking north from level of ditch. Figure 7: West facing elevation/profile across wall. North facing section of in situ inner face of wall (308). South facing elevation of outer-face of wall (309). Figure 8: Trench 7: Plan and east facing section showing cut 308 with rubble fill. View of features from west. Front cover: Gateway under investigation, view from east beyond the stream Back cover: View of West Shipley Farm from the southwest; The Castles lies in the rectangular area of woodland below the farm

ii

‘The Castles’, West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham
Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results
Summary In April 2007 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4’s Time Team at ‘The Castles’, a scheduled monument situated on land at West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham (centred on NGR 410353 533078). ‘The Castles’ comprises a large, rhomboidal dry-stone monument with a single entrance to the east and a substantial ditch which appears to surround the monument on all sides. The monument was first recorded in late the 18th century and subject to a series of investigation by Hodgkin in the early 20th century, including, at times, extensive rebuilding of parts of the walls. No evidence for internal structures or dating had been found, but the monument was believed to represent the remains of a fortified site of Late Iron-Age, Romano-British or post-Roman date. The geophysical survey revealed few features within the interior other than northsouth ridge and furrow across most of the area; confirming evidence from aerial photographs and written sources for post-medieval cultivation. Potential archaeological anomalies within the interior proved to be mostly natural in origin, one anomaly in the south corresponding with an area of flagged flooring. Further ridge and furrow was observed in a survey area to the north of the monument, and 19th century field boundaries in an area to the east. Investigation of the walls showed a vertical dry-stone rubble construction built directly on the purposely levelled old ground surface or natural. The single eastern entrance probably originally had a cobbled surface, later flagged. A large upright flag placed in the wall on the north side of the entrance (no surviving evidence for pair to the south) may have formed part of a gateway. The ‘guard cell’ within the wall on the south side of the entrance has no pair to the north, and is probably a later addition inserted after almost total collapse of the wall. Evidence for only two internal archaeological features was recovered. In the southern part of the enclosure an area of rough stone flagging, probably some sort of yard, is likely to have been contemporaneous with the monument. An east-west rubble-filled linear feature in the central area of the enclosure is probably associated with terracing and drainage; the date is uncertain. No artefactual dating evidence was recovered from the site and the palaeoenvironmental data was very sparse and is undated. The monument remains enigmatic both in terms of date and function. Though clearly constructed by a substantial work force as a defensive fortification, there is little evidence to support by whom and for what it was used. It may have served as a demonstration of power, its use may have proved unnecessary by change of circumstances, or occupation may only have been temporary or seasonal. The date of the original construction seems most likely to be Late Iron Age, with possibly postRoman reuse of parts of the structure.

The evaluation was commissioned and funded by Videotext Communications Ltd. The site was selected for evaluation following an invitation from the Co. Durham Finds Liaison Officer, Rob Collins, who advised and assisted throughout the evaluation. The collaborative role and assistance of the landowner, Mr. Frank Johnson of West Shipley Farm, is gratefully acknowledged. The geophysical survey was undertaken by Emma Wood (GSB Prospection) with the assistance of James Adcock and Dr. John Gater, and the GIS data was collected by Dr. Henry Chapman (Birmingham Archaeology). The evaluation strategy was devised and directed by Professor Mick Aston (Bristol University). Co-ordination of the site recording was by Jacqueline McKinley, assisted by Naomi Hall, both of Wessex Archaeology. The evaluation was undertaken by the Time Team’s retained excavators and a team of local archaeological staff. The survey of the standing remains was undertaken by Dr. Peter Hill, and the palaeoenvironmental survey by Emma Tetlow (Birmingham Archaeology). The background research was undertaken by James Mower and Jon Willers (Time Team Researchers). The archive was collated and all post-excavation assessment and analysis undertaken by Wessex Archaeology including management (Lorraine Mepham), report (Jacqueline I. McKinley), illustrations (Kenneth Lymer), general finds (Lorraine Mepham), and charred plant remains and charcoal (Dr. Chris Stevens).

1.1.1 Videotext Communications Ltd. was commissioned by Channel 4 to carry out an archaeological evaluation, as part of the Time Team television series, at The Castles, West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham (centred on NGR 410353 533078). Wessex Archaeology was commissioned to undertake the archaeological site recording, post-excavation processing and assessment of the archaeological evidence recovered. This report presents and assesses the results of the evaluation. 1.2 Site description

1.2.1 The village of Hamsterley is situated c. 10km to the west of Bishop Auckland and 19km to the south-west of Durham City, on the eastern margins of the North Pennines and c. 2km south of the river Wear. West Shipley Farm lies c. 3km to the north-west of Hamsterley, at c. 200m aOD on the south-facing upper reaches of one of a series of gentle south-easterly spurs divided by narrow valleys, which form the eastern edge of the North Pennine Hills (see back cover). Harthorpe Beck, in the valley bottom (c. 140m aOD), feeds into Bedburn Beck to the south-east (Figure 1), forming a tributary of the Wear. 1.2.2 ‘The Castles’, a scheduled ancient monument listed as a ‘large stone-built enclosure’, lies c. 280m downslope from the farm on the lower half of the slope and c. 120m above Harthorpe Beck in the valley bottom. The area of the monument, which lies between the 150m and 170m contours, is moderately wooded (see back cover) and lies amongst pastoral fields given over to sheep grazing at the time of the archaeological investigations. 1.2.3 The underlying solid geology comprises the Westphalia coal measures, with undifferentiated limestone, boulder clay, riverine alluvium and terrace deposits (British Geological Survey UK North 4th edition; GSGB Wolsingham Sheet 26). 1.2.4 All the trenches were located either within the enclosed area (Trenches 4-7) and/or across the walls (Trenches 1-3); only Trench 3 extended beyond the line of the wall to include the ditch surrounding the monument. Most of the trenches (excluding 5 and 6) were partly located over some of the early 20th century trenches to verify and assist in the interpretation of the findings of those investigations.

1

1.3

Archaeological Background

1.3.1 ‘The Castles’ comprises a large, rhomboidal dry-stone monument, describing an area c. 81.26m (west)/85.46m (east) by 65.83m (north)/79.54m (south). There is a single entrance roughly mid-way along the east side and a ditch appears to surround the monument on all sides (Figure 2). 1.3.2 The monument does not feature on 16th-18th century maps of the area and did not appear on a map until 1820, though the first written description was made in the latter part of the 18th century by Hutchinson (1794). The name of the monument was already established at that time and Hutchinson describes it as ‘… a lofty mound or vallum of loose pebble stones with outward ditch’, much overgrown by large oaks, juniper and birch trees. He records evidence for ploughing within the confines of the walls ‘in modern times’. 1.3.3 Nineteenth century writers repeated Hutchinson’s observations and it was not until the early 20th century that more detailed descriptions emerged. Wooler (1904) gives the internal dimensions as 94.73-75.89m x 65.53m, with a base wall width of 7.92m and a surviving height of 4.57m. The overgrown nature of the entrance allowed no sense of its size to be ascertained but he recorded the presence of ‘…one upright flag.’ He describes the upcast from the ditch having been used as a base on which to build the wall; it is unclear if this was an assumption or a comment verified by intrusive investigations, which, if not undertaken were at least intended. Wooler assumed the monument was defensive in nature and to have been constructed by the Brigantes. 1.3.4 Excavations undertaken in 1909-11 and 1932 by Hodgkin (1913 and 1934) revealed the general shape of the structure. He demonstrated that the corners were square externally and rounded internally; the wall had an average base width of 4.5m and an estimated height of 3m; there was a single entrance in the east wall; stairs built into the wall to the south of the gate seemed to lead to the top. Clearance of the 3.4m wide gateway exposed rough flagging and exposed a sub-circular (4.0 x 2.7m) chamber, with indications of a corbelled roof, built into the flanking wall to the south. Fairless (1997) suggested the fallen orthostat first observed by Hutchinson against the north wall may indicate the presence of a matching guard cell on that side. 1.3.5 Several narrow (1.0m wide) trenches were cut within the interior of the monument, including one extending diagonally NW-SE across its full extent. No finds were recovered and there was no evidence for internal structures excepting a central mound of stones which Hodgkin interpreted as ‘…stones placed in a low, moist spot by a farmer’. 1.3.6 Only eight, unstratified artefacts (all now lost) have been recovered from the immediate vicinity of the monument, including a fossilised tusk, slag, a stone hammerhead, arrowheads (from the outside walls), quern fragments (?rotary; allegedly from NE corner of interior), human bone (from the SE corner) and a stone socket (Ball 1923; Fairless 1997; Mower and Willers 2007). None of the items have a secure stratigraphic link with the monument nor can they

2

give a secure temporal location, though some items suggest a Late Iron Age/early Roman-British date for the monument. 1.3.7 Hodgkin undertook, often substantial, reconstruction of the walls following his investigations, adding up to eight or more course in places (1934). Robbing and demolition of parts of the wall to allow agricultural access has also occurred, particularly on the northern side of the monument (Collins, 2002). An aerial photograph from the 1960s clearly illustrates the extensive north-south ridge and furrow agricultural scars across most of the interior of the monument and the area immediately to the north of it (McCord 1970, SMR record NZ 103 331). 1.3.8 There have been numerous discussions as to the probable date and purpose of the structure, though most have generally agreed that it represents a defensive fortification of some kind (Ball 1923; Wooler 1904; Birley 1954; 223; Collingwood and Myres 1937, 230; Fairless 1997). The effectiveness of the location – part way down a slope – has been questioned, but the heavily wooded nature of the slope and massive construction of the walls have been used as to support the interpretation. Wooler (1924) provided the only major departure, arguing for the structure representing the remains of a Roman penal camp used to house lead mining slaves, though the theory has garnered little support elsewhere. 1.3.9 Several researchers have argued for a sub-Roman date to the structure, citing close similarities in location, form and construction with sites such as Cockfield Fell, Co. Durham (Roberts 1975) and Whitecliff Scar, Richmond, Yorkshire (Ramm and Dymond 1995). Currently, however, the argument remains somewhat circular since these sites have not been subject to any detailed archaeological investigation and have themselves not been securely dated. 2 2.1 METHODS Introduction

2.1.1 The Project Design for the evaluation was complied by Videotext Communications Ltd. (Mower and Willers 2007). Full details of the circumstances and methods of the evaluation may be found in the Project Design, which is held in the archive, a summary of its contexts being presented here. 2.2 Aims and objectives

2.2.1 Most of the site is a scheduled monument of national importance, the rest potentially containing features and deposits of local, regional and national significance, and the results of the archaeological investigations will form part of the resource used for the future management of the site. Currently, relatively little is known about the site, its date and purpose being subject to conjecture. In anticipation of the recovery of relatively few portable

3

artefactual remains, an emphasis was placed on environmental investigations to help achieve the stated aims: to characterise the form and extent of, and the relationships between, upstanding and subsurface archaeological remains within and in close proximity to the site to recover dateable archaeological material from within and in close proximity to the site to obtain environmental data from within and in close proximity to the site, to assist in ascertaining details of land use, the economy and environment, and the date of the site to enable a description of the monument’s method of construction and any subsequent modifications 2.3 Fieldwork

2.3.1 The programme of fieldwork was to include both non-intrusive (geophysical and standing remains surveys) and intrusive (seven evaluation trenches and targeted environmental augering) investigations. A full topographical survey was to be undertaken, but the extensive tree cover rendered this physically difficult and substantially interfered with the satellite reception; consequently, the survey was limited to those readings assisting with other parts of the project. 2.3.2 The geophysical survey was undertaken in four areas; within the area of the fort (Area 2), and to the north (Area 1), east (Area 3) and south (Area 4) of the monument (Figure 2). All four areas were subject to a magnetometer survey using Bartington Grad 601-2 and Geoscan FM 256 gradiometers; readings were logged at 0.25m intervals along 1.0m traverses (GSB Prospecting 2007). Parts of Area 2 were also subject to resistance survey using a Geoscan RM15 meter, readings at 1.0m intervals over 1.0m traverses, and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey using Sensors and Software SmartCart Noggin plus over 0.05m intervals across 0.5m traverses. The survey grid was set-out by Dr. Henry Chapman and tied into the OS grid system using a Trimble R8 Real Time Kinematic GPS system. 2.3.3 Ground conditions within the interior of the structure were not ideal, overgrown vegetation, uneven topography and remnants of the previous archaeological excavation trenches made data collection difficult. The results, however, do not appear to have been unduly affected. 2.3.4 An examination of the structure to ascertain details of its constructional history was undertaken, producing a photographic and descriptive record (Hill 2007). 2.3.5 The programme of auger and palaeoenvironmental survey was undertaken in two general locations, the ditch and the interior of the structure; no suitable contexts for environmental analysis were identified within the evaluation trenches (Tetlow 2008). Where possible, cores were extracted at 10m intervals from the external ditch. Within the interior of the structure cores were extracted at 10m intervals along 5m transects. 4

2.3.6 Seven, hand-excavated evaluation trenches of various sizes were opened, within the confines of and across the walls of the monument (Figures 2 and 3; Appendix 1). The location of two trenches (1 and 2) followed that outlined in the Project Design (section 3.5). Additional trenches were situated where appropriate based on the geophysical survey and topographic features evident within the interior, where deemed most likely to fulfil the general research aims and objectives with minimal intrusion and within the three day evaluation period. 2.3.7 Hand removal of stone from around the walls was strictly limited to that of recent tumble, sufficient to expose the in situ remains of the structure, or, in some cases, Hodgkin’s re-build. A sufficient sample of other forms of archaeological deposits, such as were present, were examined in an attempt to resolve the principal questions outlined in the aims and objectives (Section 2.2). 2.3.8 All archaeological features and deposits were recorded using Wessex Archaeology’s pro forma record sheets with a unique numbering system for individual contexts under the site code CSB07. Trenches were located using a Trimble R8 Real Time Kinematic GPS survey system, linked to the National Grid and Ordnance Datum. All archaeological features and deposits were planned at 1:20 and sections were drawn at 1:10. All principal features and deposits were related to Ordnance Survey datum. A photographic record of the investigations and individual features was maintained. 2.3.9 Where possible, environmental samples were extracted for analysis of organic remains to assist with assessment of the nature and date of a deposit. 2.3.10 The investigations were undertaken between 15th – 18th April 2007. 3 3.1 RESULTS Introduction

3.1.1 The full geophysical report (GSB prospecting 2007), structural report (Hill 2007) and details of excavated contexts are retained in the archive. A summary of the excavated trenches is presented in Appendix 1. 3.2 Geophysical survey

Area 1 3.2.1 The magnetic data revealed ridge and furrow cultivation across the survey area, but no traces of a trackway leading to the enclosure (Figure 2). Area 2 3.2.2 North-south aligned ridge and furrow cultivation, aligned parallel to the enclosure walls and following the line of slope, dominated both the magnetic and resistance data (Figure 3).

5

3.2.3 A central area of magnetic enhancement may have indicated where the furrows cut across archaeological deposits. An area of low response, again in the central area of the interior (M1) marked the location of one of Hodgkin’s trenches (see Trench 7), and a few pit like anomalies (M2) were observed in the same central area (see Trench 6). 3.2.4 An area of high resistance in the central northern part of the interior was investigated in Trench 5, and the anomaly found to be due to natural causes. 3.2.5 GPR survey in the southern part of the interior was used to define the extent of the flagged surface exposed in evaluation Trench 3. In Area G1, response (A) appears to represents a continuation of the floor; anomalies (B) were coincident with the cut of one of Hodgkin’s trenches; the ill-defined reflectors (C) may be archaeological; and the strong reflector (D) may be a large isolated stone (a test core revealed no other features). In Area G2, anomaly (E) could be directly related to one of Hodgkin’s trenches; zones of increased response (F) and (G) may represent further archaeological surfaces or natural variations. Area 3 3.2.6 Linear anomalies running on a northeast-southwest alignment probably all represent old field boundaries, at least one (M3; Figure 2) corresponding with one such marked on a 19th century map. Several pit-type responses (M4), on rough alignment with the entrance to the monument, may be associated with it or reflect the position of tree bowls. Area 4 3.2.7 A few anomalies and trends recorded in this area may have an archaeological origin, but show no coherent pattern and are most likely natural or agricultural (Figure 2). Traverses to try and define the profile of the southern ditch length were unsuccessful due to the high clay content of the deposits. 3.3 Standing remains survey

3.3.1 The inner and outer faces of the walls are of dry-laid coursed rubble with a dry stone core including water-worn boulders and quarry waste of all sizes. Almost all parts of the wall [faces] have collapsed above the lowest three or four courses and are represented by a rubble mound. From what little remains in situ it appears they were built vertically, without any batter, which is likely to have contributed to their collapse, together with stone robbing by subsequent local inhabitants. The outer quoins were built of much larger stones than was typically used within most of the rest of the walling. The east wall is more massive then rest and up to 7m wide at the base. 3.3.2 Most of the stone is a local fine-grained carboniferous sandstone, with a few pieces of coarse grit with prominent quartz crystals and white limestone with small fossils; the latter occurs locally on hilltops. Rare quartzite and basalt were also observed; probably derived from an igneous sill running close to Hamsterley. Most of the facing stone had been quarried from beds yielding

6

thin, flaggy stone; bank sides where outcrops occur would have been the most productive way of obtaining the stone, and such small quarries would leave little or no trace in the long term. Some stone could also have been recovered from the surface and others from the beds of local burns. 3.3.3 Much of the wall in the southeast of the monument was reconstructed by Hodgkin in the early 20th century. The appearance of the south wall of the gateway suggests it was rebuilt above the lowest two or three courses, but the nature of the stone - being mostly long thin slabs - differentiates it from the rest of Hodgkin’s work. The ‘guard cell’ is of similar stone. 3.3.4 Ball (1923, 147) believed only the lower 0.60m of the wall forming the ‘guard cell’ was original and that the rest had been rebuilt by Hodgkin. It is generally accepted that the feature is a secondary insertion. Since it is not possible to insert such a cell into a massive wall of this type without demolition of the wall, it is suggested that it relates to a time following abandonment of the fort, and after the wall had collapsed. 3.3.5 The survey partially verified Hodgkin’s statement (1934) that the inner corners of the walls were rounded, at least for the northeast and southwest corners; the southwest corner is no longer visible. In the northwest corner, although the west wall has a slight curve on approach, the two walls meet at an angle, the three lowest courses being visibly bonded. 3.3.6 The steps recorded by Hodgkin in the south wall, and which he believed to be original and deliberate, are of the kind used in modern wall stiles, formed by the inner wall face being set-back by up to 0.29m. They are very narrow, too narrow to mount with both hands free, and show no signs of wear. It is most likely that they were formed during a re-build, with a taper inside the original wall line. The type of large blocks forming the ‘steps’ are frequently seen in the tumble in this area of the wall and it is possible that these larger stones were used in preference within the re-build. 3.3.7 Only four stones were observed which showed evidence of having been worked with metal tools. The hole in a ‘squared stone’ (noted as ‘…atop the rubble by the stairs…’ by Fairless (1997)) recorded by Hodgkin as having held ‘the gate pin’ cannot have been used as a pivot, but could have functioned as the socket for a bolt. A piece of water-worn grey sandstone had a 50 x 60mm area of probably deliberate flattening at one end, with a Vshaped groove cut with something like a fine punch, the purpose of which is unclear; five adjacent rough grooves, again cut with a punch, may be modern. Six grooves cut into one face of a piece of brown sandstone from Hodgkin’s spoil heap in the north of the interior may have been intended as decorative; the location of the stone suggests they may be modern. A U-shaped channel cut into a natural slab of buff sandstone is of unknown function. NB. The punch has been part of the standard tool kit for stone working for at least 3,000 years.

7

3.4

Archaeological evaluation

Trench 1 3.4.1 The trench was situated across a section of the north wall previously subject to investigation by Hodgkin to corroborate his observations and gain further details of the construction history (Figure 3). 3.4.2 The wall had been constructed directly on the old ground surface (103) which may have been subject to preparatory terracing to level the ground. Only three to four courses of the original wall (102) remained in situ, several courses of re-build having been added at the east end, presumably by Hodgkin (Figure 4). Stone tumble, from both the original wall (101) and the re-build (100), were evident in the subsoil and topsoil respectively, downslope of the wall. Trench 2 3.4.3 Trench 2 was located across the eastern entrance to the fort to re-investigate Hodgkin’s work on the walls and verify, or not, the suggestion of there possibly being a matching ‘guard cell’ to that in the south wall within the wall to the north of the entrance (Figure 3). 3.4.4 Clearance of the stone tumble and leaf mould from between and around the walls flanking the entrance revealed the in situ walling, of which the lower three to six courses on the south side (231 and 217) and four to ten course on the north side (204 and 219) appear to represent the original construction. Five to 11 courses to either side of the entrance (205, 216 and 218) are likely to represent Hodgkin’s re-build, generally comprising smaller stones but certainly a greater mix of sizes than seen in the original (most clearly expressed in the difference between 213 and 216 on the outer face of the south wall; Figure 5). 3.4.5 Comparison of the present upstanding walling with that shown in a photograph taken 25th May 1920 (Durham County Record Office) shows that at least seven courses (presumably Hodgkin’s 1911-12 re-build) have been lost from the south wall in the intervening years. Figure 6 in Hodgkin’s 1934 publication shows a photograph of the north wall prior to his reconstruction, with only three to four in situ courses of stone and the large stone slab 212 set upright against the then complete length of wall (204). A post-reconstruction photograph taken by Hodgkin c. 1912 (1912 PSAN) shows the western portion of the wall to have been built-up to at least 21 courses. 3.4.6 The flagging seen in the photograph from 1920 largely appears to match that seen after clearance; that in the western (inner) half of the entrance laying more evenly on a flatter surface (202) and that in the eastern (outer) half lying unevenly on a slight slope (208). The upper levels of the flatter flagging (202) appear to represent part of the early 19th century re-build; one of the few finds from the site – a piece of modern glass – being recovered from below one of the flags. The flagging overlay a roughly cobbled surface (207) which could either represent the original, or a foundation layer for later flagging (possibly both, the flagging replacing the cobbling during the lifetime of the fort). That at least part of the surface is likely to have been flagged in antiquity, and as

8

part of the original construction, is suggested by the apparent integration of the flagging 208 with what appears to represent the original walling (213) on the east corner of the south wall (Figure 5). 3.4.7 The collapsed (and probably partially robbed) wall core on the north side of the entrance was investigated for evidence suggestive of the presence of a cellular structure to match that on the south side, but none was found (Figure 5). It was observed, however, that the southern wall is stepped-in by c. 0.50m from a point c. 1.35m west of the outer wall (213); a feature not matched in the wall on the north side of the entrance. This may suggest a more substantial collapse and remodelling of the walling on the south side. 3.4.8 The large slab (212) within the wall on the north side of the entrance has clearly slumped from an upright position, where it would have been set against the butt-end of wall 204 c. 1.90m in from the outer wall face, slightly east of the halfway-point along the entrance way (Figure 5). If the upright, standing to at least 1.90m, projected into the entrance way itself, it is likely to have done so only slightly (c. 0.10m) if at all. No corresponding feature was observed on the opposite side of the entrance (which lies c. 0.60-0.70m to the east of the entrance to the ‘guard cell’), but this area of the south wall appears to have been subject to substantial collapse and disturbance, which could have destroyed such evidence. Trench 3 3.4.9 Trench 3 was located on the same alignment as one of Hodgkin’s c. 1.0m wide trenches [306] across the central section of the south wall (Figure 3). The aim, while minimising the level of intrusion to the monument itself, was to ascertain constructional details of the walls and the stratigraphic relationships with any internal and/or external features/deposits. 3.4.10 As elsewhere within the monument, there had been a substantial degree of tumble from the walls both prior and subsequent to Hodgkin’s investigations (304, 311, 316; Figures 6 and 7) which had to be cleared to reveal the in situ remains. There was no evidence to indicate Hodgkin had attempted to reconstruct the wall faces in this area of the monument, though stone had been added to the core. Approximately 1.0m of poorly sorted stone tumble was removed from the area of the core to reveal what was believed to represent the more sorted, ‘layered’ rubble (309) forming the original in situ remains. 3.4.11 The south wall was located close to the edge of what appears to be a natural break in the north-south slope, one of two towards the valley base which may represent river terraces, and between which lay the southern line of the ditch surrounding the monument (Figures 6 and 7). 3.4.12 The natural slope had been terraced to create level surfaces on which to construct the wall, which had been built directly on the exposed natural (310/313). The surface was not taken to the same level across the whole 5.50m width of the wall, however, the natural on which the north (inner) face (308) of the wall was constructed being 0.93m higher than that on which the

9

south (outer) face (305) lay, at 155.58m aOD compared with 154.65m aOD. Only full excavation of a segment through the wall would demonstrate if the levelled surface were made as two areas of terracing, or confined to the proposed lines of the inner and outer faces maintaining the natural slope over the area to be occupied by the wall core (which would be more energy efficient). 3.4.13 Only seven (305) to eight (308) courses of the in situ wall faces had survived. Both show similar vertical, dry-stone rubble construction, but the outer face (305) had clearly experienced greater pressure from behind resulting in the upper courses slipping forwards and extensive voiding between many of the stones (Figure 7). The slippage undoubtedly reflects the pressure exerted from behind by the dense vacuous rubble core (309), which survived to a much greater height than either of the wall faces; max. 156.85m aOD, 1.39m higher than the top of the south face (305) and 0.44m higher than the north face (308). The lower starting point of the south face discussed above, possibly aided by the use of the un-terraced natural slope over which the core was laid, may have exacerbated the pressure on the southern face. 3.4.14 The southern part of the interior of the monument appears slightly more level than much of the rest, undoubtedly, at least partly aided by colluvial deposits (302) of up to 0.35m depth (Figures 6 and 7). The colluvium seems to have accumulated subsequent to the collapse of wall (316) and is most likely to have formed as a result of the post-medieval (?early 19th century) cultivation of the interior of the monument (see Sections 1.3 and 3.2). The area is slightly boggy and probably prone to waterlogging, partly an effect of the massive south wall obstructing the down-hill run-off. 3.4.15 An uneven flagged surface (307) lay in the lee of the south wall within the interior of the monument. The surface was laid directly on the natural (310) which suggests it may be contemporaneous with the fort; though at this point, c. 4-6m north of the wall, the natural lay 0.38m higher (155.96m a OD) than that upon which the north face of the wall (308) was constructed. The full extent of the flagging is uncertain; it was cut through by Hodgkin’s trench [306] but does not appear to continue in the exposed elevation closer to the wall face (308) (Figures 6 and 7). Anomalies recorded in the geophysical survey suggest the surface may have covered a minimum 5 x 5m area (Figure 3; Section 3.2) and that a similar surfaced area may possibly exist to the east (G2). 3.4.16 The wall tumble in the interior (316) extended to within 3.50m of the wall face (308) while that to the south spread further down slope (4.50m); this is more likely to be a feature of gravity than reflective of variations in the heights of the inner and outer wall faces. 3.4.17 The southern line of the enclosing ditch [315] lay c. 8.50m downslope of the walls, c. 1.70m below the level of the natural on which the outer face of the wall (305) was constructed (at 152.95m aOD). The ditch could not be fully investigated but appears to have been c. 3.25m wide and, based on the evidence from the environmental cores, over 3m deep.

10

Trench 4 3.4.18 Trench 4 was cut through the northeast facing section of a central segment of the diagonal trench Hodgkin cut across the interior of the fort (Figure 3), thereby providing the least intrusive view of the soil matrices within this area. No archaeological features were observed, the natural (404/403) being overlain by a shallow depth of possible old ground surface (402) and the upcast from Hodgkin’s trench (401). Trench 5 3.4.19 The trench was located on a level, possibly terraced, area in the northern part of the fort interior, over a geophysical anomaly (see Section 3.2). No archaeological features or deposits were observed. Trench 6 3.4.20 The trench was located in the centre of the interior, opposite the gateway, within an area believed most likely to be the focus of domestic occupation; geophysical survey results had also suggested the possibility of archaeological features in this area (Figure 3). The area is relatively level, possibly terraced, and partly coincided with one of Hodgkin’s trenches. 3.4.21 The only archaeological features observed were the remnants of agricultural ridge and furrow evident in the section, together with upcast from Hodgkin’s trench. A tree throw and associated root hollows were found in the centre of the trench. Trench 7 3.4.22 The trench was party located over one of Hodgkin’s trenches, where he had recorded a ‘central mound of stones’, and an anomaly highlighted in the geophysical survey (Figure 3). 3.4.23 An obtuse V-shaped cut (708; not bottomed), filled with moderately sorted stone rubble (707), lay on a E-W alignment on the downslope (south) side of the relatively flat, possibly terraced area on which Trench 6 was located (Figure 8). The fill was waterlogged towards the base of the cut. The cut appears very slightly curved in plan, but the upper edge was only apparent over a relatively short (c. 3m) length and the rubble fill has a more linear alignment. The cut appears to have been made through the current topsoil on the upslope side of the feature, though both topsoil (700) and subsoil (701) seal the fill of the cut on the downslope side. 3.4.24 The only other feature evident within the trench was a continuation of the ridge and furrow seen in the south-facing section.

11

4

FINDS

4.1.1 The evaluation produced a very small quantity of artefactual material, all of which was recovered from Trench 2, mainly from antiquarian backfill. The quantification of finds by material type and by context is presented in Table 1. 4.1.2 The earliest finds comprise the four pieces of worked flint, two flakes and two cores; none of these are chronologically diagnostic within the prehistoric period, and a broad date range of Neolithic to Bronze Age is suggested. Glass (clear bottle/jar) and metal (cartridge end and spherical copper alloy fitting) are obviously modern in date. The stone includes one rounded quartz pebble, not obviously utilised (topsoil 200), and two pieces of coal (surface 207). 5 5.1 PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE Survey results

The ditch 5.1.1 The fills of all except the north ditch length largely comprised medium to coarse grained sands, with some finer clays and silts; the shallow (max. 0.45m) sandy fill of the northern ditch length are thought to have formed as a result of colluviation and run-off, the wall of the structure acting as an impermeable barrier. The maximum depth of deposit (>3m) was recovered from the southwest part of the ditch which was wetter than elsewhere and contained running water. It is not clear whether the water was flowing from the stream which flowed north-south to the east of the fort or was independently fed by a spring. 5.1.2 The ditch provided no suitable material for environmental analysis or radiometric dating and the exact nature of the feature remains unclear. Interior 5.1.3 Deposits within the interior were relatively shallow (<0.20m). The rock basement was overlain by a deposit which appeared to be a poorly developed soil and consisted of medium sand, gravels and finer grained material. 5.1.4 An area in the southwest contained a small waterlogged deposit, located at a depth of 0.30m, which comprised medium sand and clay with some relatively large fragments of wood and organics. After processing, a number of insects and seeds were extracted from the residue: Coleoptera: Oxytelus rugosus – in manure, compost and dung (Koch 1989) Enicmus minutus - mildewed hay and straw, compost and stable manure (Koch 1989) Cercyon spp. - rotting organic material (Hansen 1987)

12

Waterlogged plant remains: Apiaceae spp. indet. – family commonly associated with disturbed, open ground and waysides Chenopodium spp. – e.g. Fat hen, a ruderal species of open, disturbed ground Stellaria media – waste and disturbed ground, waysides 5.1.5 The assemblage suggests an open environment at the time of deposit formation, but the date of the deposit is ambiguous due to the lack of radiometric and cultural evidence. There are clear indications of disturbance, but it is unclear by what means. The waterlogged seeds are all from taxa associated with waste and disturbed ground (Stace 1991); the Coleoptera species are all found with foul, rotting material, particularly dung and manure; the lathridiid, Enicmus minutus, is also widely associated with human habitation and domestic activity (Hall and Kenward 1990, Kenward and Hall 1995, Kenward and Hall 1997, Kenward et al 1980). 5.1.6 Sample data 5.1.7 A single sample was taken from the base layer (210) for part of the flagged surface within the gateway (Trench 2). The sample was processed for the recovery and assessment of charred plant remains and charcoals. 5.1.8 The samples was processed by standard flotation methods; the flot retained on a 0.5 mm mesh, residues fractionated into 5.6 mm, 2mm and 1mm and dried. The coarse fractions (>5.6 mm) were sorted, weighed and discarded. Flots were scanned under a x10–x40 stereo-binocular microscope and the presence of charred remains quantified (Table 2). 5.1.9 The flots had high/low numbers of modern roots that imply the deposit was less well sealed than was believed. There was very little charcoal and no cereal or other charred macro-remains were recorded. 6 6.1 DISCUSSION Evidence for features and deposits within the interior of the monument was sparse. Although there is some indication for terracing at intervals within the interior, adjusting the natural slope to create platforms, other than where this directly coincides with wall construction there is no clear indication of the purpose or date of the levelling. Several areas which appeared to form ‘platforms’ were investigated, but across at least the northern half of the interior no instructive data was forthcoming. The rubble-filled linear feature (708), situated just south of the centre of the interior, appears to lie on the southern margin of one of these ‘terraced’ areas and may be directly related to it, forming a rough revetting ‘wall’ on the downslope side of the terrace whilst also providing some drainage control. No direct dating evidence was recovered from this feature and it is likely that erosion of the overlying deposits by the post-medieval ploughing – for which there is visual and textual evidence – has destroyed the original and pertinent

6.2

13

stratigraphic relationships; the overlying deposit upslope being removed to the level of the top of the feature whilst those downslope may have accumulated by the same mechanism. The feature could be contemporaneous with the monument itself, or relate to re-use of the interior in later (including post-medieval) periods; Hodgkin (1934) mentioned a mound of stone in this area which he believed had been dumped by the farmer to combat the boggy ground. 6.3 The area, possibly one of several, of rough flagging at the south end of the interior, in the lee of the south wall, lay on the same stratigraphic level (the natural) as the wall itself, and clearly predated the colluvial deposits doubtless linked with the post-medieval ploughing of the interior. No direct link between the walls and the surface was found and, as elsewhere, no artefactual dating evidence was recovered. On the available evidence, however, the surface probably is contemporary with the monument, but its exact purpose is unclear. This area of the interior may, as now and for the same reasons, have been prone to being slightly boggy and the flagging would have provided a more stable area for activity than the normal ground surface. Its rough nature suggests a yard surface rather than a domestic or similar structure interior floor surface, but there was neither environmental nor artefactual evidence to assist interpretation. No stratified dating evidence was recovered from any of the areas of investigation and no environmental deposits suitable for dating were recovered. The sparse surviving environmental material – indicative of open, disturbed ground and the presence of dung and manure – is undated. Whilst it could be contemporary with the monument and, given its relatively close proximity to the possible flagged yard area at the south end of the interior, indicative of the stockading of cattle or other domesticates, it could also be related to midden material imported for manuring the ploughed areas in the post-medieval period. The dry-stone wall construction had no foundations but was made directly on either the old ground surface or the natural, the slope being terraced to provide a level surface on which to build each wall face. The lack of proper foundations and batter to the walls, absence of any (sustainable) bonding, weight and volume of the core material, and construction on sloping ground, will have combined to render the walls unstable. The single entrance to the interior, with its cobbled/flagged surface, is likely to have been approached via a bridge over the steeply banked stream running down the east side of the fort. The one upright stone in the wall flanking the north side of the entrance may have been matched on the south side, the pair forming ‘piers’ for a wooden gateway, but on the currently available evidence this can only be conjecture. The guard-house on the south side of the entrance, for which there is no evidence for a pair on the north side, is generally agreed to be a later addition, constructed following the collapse of the south wall, probably many years after the fort’s original construction.

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

14

6.8

The extreme paucity of recoverable archaeological finds both in this and earlier investigations could relate to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors, or a combination of both. The sandy acid soils may have mitigated against the survival of animal bone and other such environmental evidence (though fragments of human bone were reportedly recovered in the 19th century). The north-south post-medieval ploughing of the interior could have destroyed ephemeral structural evidence, and the inevitable ensuing soil erosion have carried materials to the lower southern margins of the interior. If this suggestion were correct, the southern portion of the interior and the margins adjacent to the walls are likely to represent the least disturbed areas and those containing portable evidence redeposited from elsewhere in the interior. Taphonomic changes aside, the lack of any evidence for pits, postholes or other forms of negative feature within the interior suggests they were never there. Dense occupation would produce large quantities of refuse which may have been removed outside the walls to minimise the unpleasantness, too many large refuse pits in such an area also potentially creating a variety of hazards, but one would expect something to survive if the interior had been occupied by many people for any length of time. With its massive walls, possibly originally standing to 4m high (Hill 2007), surrounded by a 3-4m wide ditch over 3m in depth and accessed via a single gated entrance potentially via a bridge, the monument is clearly defensive in nature; but defending who from what? The massive size of the walls would have demanded a high level of co-operation by a large labour force in order to complete its construction, estimated at c. 210 men over a 2 year period (Hill 2007). Either one elite group could command such a force for their own benefit, or the construction was intended as a communal one, perhaps in anticipation of offering shelter to people and/or stock should the need arise. Perhaps the act of construction itself, a demonstration of the ability to command the necessary man-power to undertake it, fulfilled the purpose for the monument. Possibly whatever threat had spurred its construction passed or became irrelevant before it could be put to use. Occupation may have been temporary and seasonal, associated with stock movements or protection from raiding by wild animals or humans. Despite falling within the Northern Frontier Fort zone, its relative proximity to Dere Street and roughly rectilinear form, the monument is not commonly believed to be of Roman construction. Closer consideration of the shape shows it to be more rhomboidal than rectilinear, and unlike similarly constructed features along Hadrian’s Wall, the walls are not mortared (Collins 2002). A Late Iron Age or possibly post-Roman date has been suggested for The Castles, with possible parallels being available in the region for both. Thorpe Thewles, Cumbria, comprises a rectilinear ditched enclosure with some similarities in form to The Castles, but contains clearly definable hut circles and occupational debris of Late Iron Age date (Heslop 1987). Shipley Moat, situated a few kilometres away, is an earth and stone double banked enclosure situated on a hill slope, with no visible traces of internal habitation; though no intrusive investigations have been carried-out at the site (Huff 2000). Wooler 15

6.9

6.10

6.11

6.12

(1904) postulated that the fortification had been constructed by the Brigantes as a stronghold against the Roman invaders, its location within a heavily wooded hill area being a prime situation for such defences. 6.13 Similar sites of potentially post-Roman date include Cockfield Fell, c. 10km to south of Hamsterley, and Whitecliffe Scar, Richmond, Yorkshire; both include rectilinear enclosures which seem to have had single entrances on the east side and to be of dry stone rubble construction, the former located on a hillside and the latter at the base of a cliff (Yorkshire Dales SMR NZ 1370 0195; Roberts 1975; Everson and Welfare 1984; Collins 2002). There is some evidence for internal structures within the confines of the enclosure at Whitecliffe Scar, and although attributed a possible post-Roman date (Birley 1954), Late Iron Age and Roman-British material has been recovered from adjacent features (Yorkshire Dales SMR). The internal structural remains at Cockfield Fell are believed to be a later superimposition (Roberts 1975). Neither of these sites have been subject to intrusive archaeological investigation. The Castles remains enigmatic in terms of date but is most likely to be Late Iron Age in origin, though the later insertion of the guard cell in to the collapse south wall of the entrance may have been post-Roman. Only further investigation, the most promising area being that in the southern portion of the interior, is likely to throw further light on its purpose and more closely define its date. RECOMMENDATIONS No further work is suggested for any of the finds – artefactual or palaeoenvironmental - and, given the small quantities involved, the range of material and its provenance, none are recommended for long-term curation. A copy of this report will be submitted to the County Durham Sites and Monuments Record. It is recommended that a summary of the results is submitted as a short note for inclusion in the annual round-up of archaeological investigations in the Durham Archaeological Journal. ARCHIVE The project archive, which includes all finds, written, drawn and photographic records relating directly to the investigations undertaken, is currently held at Wessex Archaeology under the site code CSB07 and Wessex Archaeology Project code 65303. It is anticipated that the archive will be handed over to Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, Co. Durham.